TheMercySeat

Thanks! This process is pretty awful. I don't want to take any chances for my December 15th deadline so I think I'm going to swap out one of my recommenders.

Yup! I know this feeling. Two of my managers claim that universities don't really care if letters of rec come in late... Is there any truth to this in PhD psych programs? I was initially left with the impression that a late letter of rec will deem an application incomplete.

At the undergraduate level, first generation college students are statistically more likely to drop out. Based on those findings, some more elite institutions allegedly have been known to reject undergrads. I do want to strongly emphasize that I do not know whether this applies *at all* at the graduate level. When possible, I personally skip over those questions because I'm suspicious of them.

As somebody that works in education research, those are probably a proxy for SES... Dirty little trick...

I saw something @a SUNY... I think Binghamton?

Oops! Yes! I meant "getting creative" in terms of adventuring away from academia. Clearly I see value in academia, or else I wouldn't be here, but in terms of practical considerations... Eh... I apologize for my doom and gloom, but nobody deserves this: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an-adjunct/stories/201309180224 :x And this! Ouch. http://www.npr.org/2013/09/22/224946206/adjunct-professor-dies-destitute-then-sparks-debate Of course a fresh PhD won't become an independent researcher upon graduation, but it would be nice if alt research gigs (I.e., government or nonprofit research) weren't taboo. As far as creativity (in the more literal sense) goes, I had a former professor tell me that conformity is more valued. With this being said, I don't doubt plenty of profs think otherwise-- in fact, I hope they do.

I want to jump in on this because I made a similar point here: Further, I commend you for bringing up this point. Some disclosure: I received my master's from a university with a track record of sending graduate students to PhD programs at R1 institutions. I sought out research experience before applying to PhD programs mainly because I wanted to take some time to improve my GRE scores and strengthen my portfolio. Most RA gigs for entry level and beyond required a BA/BS psych +... programming experience, MRI training, a phlebotomy certificate, etc. Most of my UG and master's curriculum failed to translate into real world experience. Ironically, I eventually got a RA gig conducting research on workplace and academic readiness and success, in which must of the research agenda is guided by how universities fail to prepare students for the workforce. I can honestly say that learned more in how to conduct research at my job than I ever did in the classroom. Anyway, back on track, while a professorship is the universal holy grail, I am apparently rather alone (as far as academia goes) in believing that one can conduct noble, intellectual stimulating, and socially relevant research in the nonprofit or government sector. In fact, one of the most brilliant, accomplished people I have ever met left academia to become an independent medical sociologist. He travels the world (literally) to share the policy implications of his disability research, has delegates from other countries in his office on a regular basis, and frequently wins competitive federal grants. I personally cringe at the idea that academia considers non-academics such as my friend to be second class citizens and I wish that creativity wasn't such a faux pas.

I found that asking about recent dissertations helps. Also, I try to email them on weekdays, since weekend emails tend to accumulate and get lost in the shuffle.

Naturally,I started researching this topic further, and started reading some horror stories blogs about PhD candidates coming out to their committees and advisors about wanting to be a research scientist. The nonprofit research firm I work for hires and contracts professors constantly. People here vacillate between academia and industry here alllll the time, so I'm so far removed from having a holistic, clear understanding the attitudes professors have about industry research. I just don't want to get locked out of all options for saying I REALLY like research, and I'd really like to elucidate complex social problems with it I like academia too, but there's little evidence that professorship jobs are keeping up with the number of awarded PhDs.

Such a shame!!! There is some breathtaking research in the private sector, evidenced by Google and private-sector grant recipients from IARPA, DARPA, and the like. I do some pretty cool stuff at my current job that does not involve scamming the general public. In fact, when I accepted my current job, my options were either to work abnormal hours for slave wages to scrap saliva off of tongues at a university, or to accept a private sector job that would cross-train me for several high-profile, federally funded, innovative projects with guarentees of publications, conferences, and the like. Seemed ike a no-brainer Back on point, thank you very kindly for this feedback. I think I will say that I want to be a research scientist or a professor... just to be safe. It will be a half-truth because the idea of being a PT prof in addition to a research job does appeal to me and further, the bulk of prof gigs are PT, anyway. Becoming a professor is a career path that I would never want to rely on for a stable, livable salary, though.

Amen! The GRE ruins life. (potential) word of advice: consider applying to a reputable university overseas.

I figured it would be prudent to consult the masses on this one: what is the 'wrong' response for career goals? I am under the impression that (1) leaving academia is frowned down on, and (2) the outlook for reasonable, full time professor gigs is grim. Here is an uplifting link in reference to the second point: http://northwesthistory.blogspot.com/2011/11/open-letter-to-my-students-no-you.html I am asking this because I want to be a research scientist, but I fear the implications for stating such on a PhD application. I would happily... stretch the truth by stating that I would like to be a professor, but I do not ad comms thinking that I am delusional, either. Thoughts? I have not been in academia for four years, two of which I have spent in industry research. My perspective on this is limited, hence why I am consulting folks on this forum...

Thank you very kindly for the feedback.

Happy Friday! Right now I am preparing my application materials for PhD psychology prorgams and I want to get some perspective on CVs/resumes. I currently have a resume-like document that I am rather pleased with, but... it's not a proper CV. Trying to convert it into the brief narrative format seen in traditional CVs is a challenging for two reasons: (1) I have a unique RA job, in which I have worked on easily 10-15 different projects (the philosophy here is that RAs receive lots of cross-training and work in multiple research centers, which is excellent, except when it comes to writing a CV!); and (2) the terms of my NDAs for about half of the projects prevent me from name dropping the funding source or uniquely descriptive information about the project. Does anybody have any insight as to how much of a difference a bulleted resume v. traditional CV makes and any proposed remedies for these two challenges? My CV is going to look absurdly obnoxious if I try to feature every project that I am on :/ Thanks!

Men tend to cluster on both extremes-- just as there are more male geniuses, there are also more men with intellectual disabilities. Also, women started outperforming males on Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) maybe about three years ago. It is generally agreed by psychometricians that RPM is a much more valid indicator of IQ than the SAT/GRE. First and foremost, RPM was actually designed to be an IQ test, whereas the SAT/GRE are aptitude tests that are largely contingent on rote memorization.

^ bingo. See also: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot.pdf For every nearly discipline, men outperform women on the GRE. Granted, these data are just descriptive, but still... Why does America use metrics that disproportionately benefit males in college admissions?

Good point, bsharpe. I'd like to think that some researcher(s) somewhere controlled for major in some of the studies feeding into the meta analysis (second link), but I honestly haven't canvassed all of the articles. Still... It doesn't quite resolve the gender gap on the SAT/GRE-- why is exists, how it came about, and why it is particularly bad in the US, relative to other industrialized nations. In fact, some literature suggests reverse-directionality in the US (females score lower in quant, which leads to them avoiding traditional 'hard science' majors; in fact, there's quite a bit out there that's specific to women in physics). This topic has been a tangential interest of mine.

I didn't think to put a summary under the assumption that prospective graduate students would probably want to read primary source content and draw their own conclusions. Anyway, since I think the point is missed... I would like to draw your attention to differential item functioning/differential validity and over/under prediction. These are psychometric flaws in the test with real life implications that systematically exclude qualified women from higher education.

I've been doing some leisurely reading on the gender gap. Does this disturb anyone else? http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-09150-001/ https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2001-6-differential-validity-prediction-college-admission-testing-review.pdf

So I have been "ghosting" this forum for some time and right now my biggest regret is not contributing and gaining some perspective sooner. @iphi, you're absolutely right and I'm glad I concealed my surprise at the event. Some more self-disclosure: none of my friends, research assistant colleagues, or family members are going for PhDs, so much of this process is new turf to me. @delta, there was a VERY awkward silence because the attendee pointed out the discrepancy, to which the prof eventually said "no, we don't select anybody below the 50th percentile." Now I am starting to lean towards not mentioning this concern to anybody in the program.

So... WOW. First and foremost, thanks for NOT judging my sad and embarrassing quant score. I should also mention that the open house was open invite and that I got to meet my POI and his students while at the open house. I'm under the impression that there's so much rigmarole involved with the PhD application process that I cannot afford *not* to go above and beyond to meet my POIs, attend open house events, etc., especially given my sad Q score. Further, for me reaching out to a stranger in a POI context is awkward and weird... But less so if I have a legit excuse such as, "I will be in town. We should meet up." Personally, I hate this process, and I wish they'd just look at my GPA, MA thesis, LORs, publications, conferences, and psych subject GREs, and then call it a day. > < I feel a little bit less defeated after reading these responses. It looks like I can either (a) ask a current student that I developed a rapport with on how to approach the topic, ( b ) ask the POI, or ( c ) ask the department chair (who was the one that verbalized it at the event). Her mentioning of the 50th percentile caught a few people off guard. At least two others (not me) probed the issue further during the Q&A period.

So I researched a program of interest, reached out to the POI, and flew across the country to attend a recent graduate open house. Everything was going well... Until I was told at the open house that applicants with a GRE subscale score below the 50th percentile are automatically discarded, which clearly contradicts the website. the latter explicitly brags that they do not use cut scores, regurgitates some platitude about "considering the whole person," and the states that the average score for a student in the program is 1200. Backstory- I've been out of school for a while and I burned much of my PTO to reteach myself the otherwise useless GRE algebra that I haven't used in over a decade. I scored in the 81st percentile for V, 93rd for AW, and somewhere around the 97th for the psych GRE... And I potentially fall in the 49th percentile for Q (official scores are pending). I work 60+ hour weeks (at a research gig, in which my commute is roughly 2 hours a day. Realistically, taking the GRE again with the expectation of gains in my Q without compromising my job performance is not really an option. To put things into perspective, there have been days where I have been in the office from 9 AM until 11 PM... I am honestly not exaggerating when I say my research job with high pressure federal contracts makes it *very* hard to put in significant time to study for the GRE. Did I mention I spent over a thousand dollars in travel expenses to attend this open house? I am devastated. Any ideas on what to do?